A fancy way of saying "get lucky".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Printable View
A fancy way of saying "get lucky".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I think it's more like .... da plane, da plane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
Was that a "sigh of relief" exhibited by arci, that a poster as weak as Vic bothered to come on to support him in his time of need?
Hilarious!
Absolutely it's all about getting lucky. But when you play "conventional strategy" you also have to get lucky. You can't overlook that conventional strategy does not guarantee a win. "Expected return" is not a guaranteed return, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
Further, ER can only be attained over the "long term" the AP's believe in if all the lucky hands are actually hit--something that is hardly guaranteed and is thus, an unreliable method of approaching video poker success. In fact, the only thing a player can count on during his play, is getting more losing hands than winning hands.
This is why SPS has always been a successful, consistent winning strategy. It takes the math for what it was meant to be taken for: recognizing that very little is guaranteed for the player over the long term, recognizing that over that long term the casinos will always flourish, and understanding that in a short term session-by-session approach laden with specific goals and special plays which enhance big hit opportunities, the math as assumed from a long term point of view, simply does not exist. In fact, several times I've stated here--and several times it tugged at Supernerd's cape-- that my special plays combined with other SPS aspects actually increase game ER in the single session. Why? Because, and the math will show this, when you reduce the ER's long term effect on results by the percentage derived by comparing how many hands the long term actually plays (use assumption because there is no clearly true answer other than "infinity") to the average amount of hands played in a short term session--and apply the factor derived from comparing big hit opportunity % playing optimal strategy to big hit opportunity incorporating special plays, this results in an approximate 32% increase in today's session's ER. And I believe I beat that expectation when playing SPS, by quite a bit.
Don't flatter yourself by misconstruing anything that appears to be anti-Singer as being pro-Arci, and vice versa. The world of video poker doesn't begin with, end with, or revolve around either of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Getting lucky aside, "tweaking your play" can also worsen the mathematical disadvantage that the pay table gives you. If you are playing 8/5 BP, breaking up and turning down a standard JOB hand (because going for pushes is not part of the strategy), and breaking up 2 pair to go for a quad can reduce a 99.166% game down to as low as a 55.939% game if none of the tweaks pan out. That's a scary thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Those are not examples of things I would do Vic. But in TDB when dealt AAA3K I would hold just the trip Aces. What would you do? Take the conventional play of a 1/47 shot of drawing an ace or give yourself two shots at drawing the case A ?? That is about the best example there is of the effectiveness of Rob's special plays. Breaking up two pair in Bonus isn't.
That's where you're completely wrong Vic (although it is I who am the end-all in video poker, while arci always has been and remains....an Internet hack with habitual troll tendencies on the subject). Making certain special plays improves opportunity in a session. You cannot apply long term rules to short term play. Show me any one session that comes out exactly on ER target, and I'll show you how to spell MIRACLE. As such, while it is virtually impossible to alter the ER into infinity, it is as easy as pie to do TODAY, and you will not know which direction it'll take you until the deal is done. Overall, I've developed a method which gives a big nod to the player based on historical fact, while theorists can only studded their way into predicting doom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
And doesn't where you're at in the strategy have a lot to do with it? Let's say I'm playing aart and I've advanced to the $10 level and the first hand I'm dealt a full house-Aces over. Since it's my first hand at this level, I can't lose with the 3 A's. I will win $1.25 ANYWAY and RETURN to the lowest level. And, if the 4th one hits- I'm gone. Now if it was my THIRD hand, I would hold the full house. Is this proper thinking?
Huh?? I really wish this was explained so the rest of us mere mortals would know what the heck you're talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
2 reasons why I selected BP as an example: 1) I believe it's Rob's game of choice 2) the disparity of the two percentages is so great that it's a graphic illustration of how tweaking can affect the game in a worst case scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Without precise and specific guidelines as to "how and when to tweak" (that sounds so silly, I was reluctant to type it), the many and assorted alphabet systems that Rob employs might be more destructive than beneficial to the typical VP player, and even more so to the novice player.
Even though it's possible that detailed step-by-step tutorials were published by Rob years ago in those now defunct locations, anyone coming onto the scene today hasn't the foggiest idea what he's attempting to communicate in regard to tweaking / special plays. If there are indeed hundreds of his students out there who he claims are successful players only due to his tutelage, I would expect to see some of them show up here to help explain the intricacies to us morons inasmuch as the professor has yet to do it and appears to be incapable of doing it.
Then teach us, omniscient guru. Bring the great unwashed masses into your fold. The needs of the people are many, and you are the last great hope upon whom we beseech our pleas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
What I believe he means Alan, is that in the AART strategy (I haven't explained it to you thoroughly yet) when you're dealt two pair or better on any level as the first hand in that level, you automatically win your mini-win goal and go back to the lowest denomination to start again. The $1.25 reference means he started at the 25c level, I expect. I would not, however, ever go for the four Aces over holding the FH in this case, because your first goal is to attain a mini-win goal, and since that's been done with the FH, there's no need to go for a special play--even if there's a decent possibility of being done. IE, going home with a four Aces hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I guess you've never played arrt in Rob's strategies. I think it's his best. I was talking about an imaginary $1/$2/$5/$10 game of artt in bp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Vic, this is exactly why I've met with many players over the past 12 years or so. It is not easy--not much that provides exceptional success in this world is, let alone in gambling. I could type a million words and there would still be questions. I will put up explanations, yes, but that alone will not make everyone knowledgeable to the point that they will be able to play the strategy as perfectly as I'm capable of. Videos will go a LONG way in helping, and I'm sure Alan would want to do that.
Sorry,I will send my comments through you first before posting so that you can correct them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
How could you know how I feel? Do you know what system is that I mentioned? If you know what the system is do you know how it is played and have you tried it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
By who? I thought that this was an open forum to discuss VP.Non posters see this will never write anything for fear of being scrutinized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
the results were do to a "math" play the system had nothing to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
Singer non-disciples appear to be closed minded and in-sensitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
All that aside,I truly believe that you are a gentleman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
In the parlance of the wild, wild West: You're all hat and no cattle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
(Ironic that you can't find the right "million words" to explain some of your deeply guarded secrets yet you can rant effusively about Bob Dancer, the medical issues of Arci's wife and your fabulous lifestyle.)
Says the guy who is scrutinizing my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by antfanas
They're not secrets Vic. By your own admission and to paraphrase your meaning, it took a genius to develop such a strategy. With there being no one else like me in the industry, naturally the strategy won't be easy for any player to learn without me teaching them at the machines--or possibly, via video and a question/answer session afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
Dancer's a public figure who puts himself out there by lying in his columns, pounding his sunken chest on the forums, and pretending to be a success playing vp when his only success is in the vp business. Arci's home medical issues are courtesy of a well-documented history of his poor choices and habitual behavior in gambling. And as you've seen, several people don't agree that the full-time RV lifestyle in retirement is so fabulous. We think it is and we believe there's no more fabulous a way to spend these years, if both are in good health and the finances are adequate.
What documentation is that? The lies you constantly repeat? Yup, that's all there is to Singer. Lie, lies and more lies. And, that includes his system. Like I said a while ago. We will never see any documentation because he makes up most of it on the fly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I wonder how soon Alan will see all that math? Bwah haha haha haha
There is nothing to be close-minded about. The game of VP is complete solved. Therefore, it is identical to 2+2. We know the answer is to that equation is 4 and we also the know the answer to the best approach for playing VP.Quote:
Originally Posted by antfanas
To be open-minded about Singer's system is to believe that you can find another answer to the question ... what is 2+2. It is beyond silly.
Ha! Your own documentation, as it appears on any forum I mock you about it on :)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
How about saying he's ME arci! C'Mon poor baby, you know you want to...you KNOW you want to take your anger out on someone, and how better a way to get it off your chest than to accuse another poster you don't agree with and who gets under your skin, as being me!? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The "math" for the special plays is listed on my website pages, for each of the special plays. You can see them here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
With each video the math is shown for the "optimum hold" and for the "Singer play." There is no guesswork here. The optimum holds do have the higher expected return -- Singer is quite upfront about each and every one.
Why do you continue to harp on the issue of the math? Nothing about Singer's strategy says your math is wrong. All he is saying is that if you play differently you have a chance to beat the game. (Oh, never mind. We've gone through this 5,783,224 times before.)
This statement shows just how little you know. You don't even touch on the things that are really important. You know, like the special plays don't really do what Singer claims they do. Most of them make it less likely he will reach a win goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes Alan, we know what he says. We also know it's a bunch of nonsense and anyone who believes it is a sucker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You can also play blinded folded and you will "have a chance to beat the game". Would you make that choice? If not, then why do you make one that's only different in the total amount you choose to lose.
And just because you choose to ignore rational thought 5 million times does not change a thing. It only makes you look foolish.
Alan, DELETED
Then, realize his disagreement with the special plays only goes so far. All be sees is an ER reduction into infinity, so he will naturally claim they can't possibly help today. He just doesn't have the required math skills to help him understand what and how the difference is, and even if he did, nothing would fit his agenda. DELETED
Silly Singer, your tricks are for kids.
Most intelligent adults can see right through you. Notice he uses the word "math" but never supplies any math. That is your key to understand he is lying through his teeth. Also note how he continues to try and make it about my life which has absolutely no bearing on the situation.
DELETED Anyone who believes that nonsense should not play poker. They are an easy mark.
Wow! So you would take the mini-win goal with a full house,EVEN THOUGH you accomplished it with the 3 A's? That's 15 credits and you'd only need 10 for a mini-win goal. It was my first hand as I progressed in this situation-and it's happened a lots-although not with A's. If so, would you then leave the machine? Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I have to thank you once again arci. You just gave us another example of how much fun it is watching the "chipping away" process in action! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Now for further enjoyment: We've seen your math over and over: 2+2 is 4. :) That's why your punch card era, slide rule math intellect is several notches & generations below what you'd need to understand SPS. It's sure safer to deflect the issue away from discussing why I said how it works. That way you can pretend your life of whatever you call it has nothing to do with your unending anger with Alan because he's the poker expert, and it has nothing to do with your frustration with me because I'm the video poker expert. And what are YOU the expert at? DELETED :)
The special plays should only be used when the opportunity is there for a session-ending hit, UNLESS the deal gets you to you first goal, which in this case is a mini-win goal. Remember, there are also session & trip win goal I use with ARTT, and that FH can mean a lot to both of those. Yes four Aces means you probably quit for the day, but greed comes into play since a goal has already been hit along with a little bonus. I only leave/change machines if it becomes uncomfortable to continue on for whatever reason, or if I detect that it's in a cold cycle--which in this case isn't very likely given the dealt FH.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Slingshot, if your looking for something logical, forget it. You won't get that from Singer.
Singer is the only one who seems to think that SIMPLE mathematics has changed in the last 50 years. I guess he must think Einstein was a real dolt since he had to work with mathematics 50 years before that. To anyone with half a brain they can tell that Singer is lying. Does anyone really believe that simple math used to be computed differently? Well, I suppose the suckers Singer's looking for might believe, but not anyone with any common sense at all.
And now, he's going to run to his silly "cold cycle" detection nonsense. Absolutely hilarious. I wonder how the "math" for that is figured into this strategy. Bwah haha haha haha haha
If I recall from our conversation about it, doesn't he play multi denomination machines so he can move up in denomination during a "hot cycle" and move down in a "cold cycle"?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I don't believe in hot cycles or cold cycles. I would hate to think my machine is in a cold cycle and I move down in denomination only to hit a royal.
I see players that play anywhere from 1-5 coins on single line machines. I suspect they believe in these cycles and are trying to minimize their losses while hoping to catch a hot cycle and move up. Of course, that means they believe the machines are not really random and one can only wonder why they would gamble on machines like that.
The question isn't if there are hot and cold periods, the issue is whether or not you can predict the next hand based on the hands you just experienced. It is not an issue about machines being totally random.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I believe I play random machines and I have gone through "hot periods" (call them cycles if you wish, but they were profitable) and I have gone through "cold periods" (or cycles).
Even if you can record the hands played and show you just went through 30 hands without a paying pair, it doesn't mean what the next hand will give you. That to me is what doesn't make sense about moving up and moving down in denominations. You don't know when hot or cold cycles will start and stop, you cannot predict the next hand.
Ok-I can see that. I don't see the greed part. I see it as using the best opportunity available to hit the session-ending win and since there's a possibility it's in a hot cycle-or somewhere near it-I will further be able to start again at my lowest denom on the next hand if it doesn't hit. But you're right-a 25 credit win at those levels is also a good win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Alan says: "It is not an issue about machines being totally random." and "You don't know when hot or cold cycles will start and stop, you cannot predict the next hand."
Guess what, the reason you don't know is because the machines are random. The hot/cold cycles are inherent in randomness. Anyone who flips a coin will see streaks of several heads or several tails. Is the coin hot/cold? Of course not. It's just how randomness operates. Of course, this facilitates making silly claims about machines which less than honest people might take advantage of.
And this epic flow of "logic"....from someone who moved to LV DELETED. STOP ITQuote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
What closes one mind opens another.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Translation: "Vic, I can't explain in writing what I blather about in person, because then I'd be held to my word, and heaven forbid, that's the one thing I do my best to avoid. Things in writing can come back to haunt, ya know. I use the word "genius" a lot, but perhaps I'm blowing my horn again inasmuch even a "genius" would be able to formulate the words in a succinct manner and teach others. After all, Einstein didn't explain the Theory of Relativity in person or via video to everyone interested in it, now did he. But you see, my "genius quotient" is off the charts and Einstein and his theory crap is in my rear view mirror if you catch my drift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Concerning the others, Dancer is public and I am public, but the difference is Bob is capable of explaining his VP methods in detail, and me...I'm capable of everything but. Can't help it...it's that genius thing. Arci? Well, I just enjoy being mean spirited and boastful whenever I can find someone who doesn't measure up to my lifestyle. Sure, there are others who are less fortunate in life for whatever reason, but you know what? I don't care. I'm a genius."
Rob did post that he was going to explain things in a lengthy post, if I recall, in October. Rather than criticize now, why don't we wait to see just what he does post? This will be a learning experience for all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
I only know a couple of things about Rob's beliefs and strategies and play.
I know some basics about special plays, I know his win goal system but I question it, and I know his beliefs about non random machines and I question that too. But I have no knowledge about his overall systems like SPS, SRTT, etc.
I'm willing to be patient to see what he comes up with. Either he will convert some people into seeing it his way, or he might give his opponents more reason to criticize him. Either way, waiting is a "no lose" proposition for everyone.
Yes, we are all waiting breathlessly to see how Singer proves that 2+2=5. Then again, some of us actually already know it doesn't and, in fact, might be much closer to 4 Waiting for someone to try and prove an impossibility is nothing but a complete and total waste of time. However, I do expect many from the flat earth society to be on pins and needles awaiting this disclosure.
Now you're comparing me to Einstein. This stuff is well below his capability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
And Vic, the reason I like explaining things in person is because the math-oriented people, the gurus, and most players are mostly incompetent when it comes to understanding what's behind this, and all they'd do is what a confused arci has done for years out of his frustration with not being able to comprehend it: namecall, exhibit raging envy (as you are prone to doing) lie, and look up terms and theories on the Internet to kill all that time he has on his hands. You explain something face-to-face, and you can tell if they got it or not.
All Dancer does is repeat what others before him have said. Just like arci, he hides behind the math books, and he cannot see that vp is a game that has much more to it than math.
Without knowing what the heck Rob is going to post about his overall "system" I am going to offer this: If you play "by the book" you are going to get the long term results as determined by the pay table. If you are playing a machine that has an expected payback of 100.17% that's what you're going to get 100.17%. But if Rob can show a way to get more than that long term theoretical, I'm all for considering it. I don't want a return of 100.17%. I want a return of ten percent or twenty percent or fifty percent.
Rob's "win goal" system by itself appears to have a win goal of about 5% and that is so much better than 100.17% or whatever "positive" VP games you might be playing.
Not really, you will get a result based on your strategy as well. The 100.17 is the MAXIMUM you can expect. Of course, all results will form a bell curve so you could do either better or worse than expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There is no way to increase the expectation. The 100.17 is the MAXIMUM one can expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Except for those nasty losses that eat up the entire 5% leaving you with the same .17% expectation advantage as everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
As I've explained before a progression will increase variance. For those who are lucky and have results on the right side of the bell curve the increased variance will increase profits. For those who are unlucky and on the left side of the bell curve, the increased variance will lead to significant losses.
For example, around 75% of the sessions will be won with a 5 level progression using 99% games. That requires a $17,200 bankroll. If you are unlucky you could lose your first 2 sessions (1 out of 16 chance) and lose $34,400 right away. That's where the risk comes into play. Much higher risk so you can *hope* to be one of the lucky ones. For those with logical minds that really isn't a very smart bet.
As it turns out my required bankroll for a <5% risk of ruin is less than what you could lose in only two sessions. I think I'll stay with my safer and profitable method of play.
Rob,
Jousting with you is now "exhibiting raging envy"? Obviously the bartender has been serving you narcissism doubles.
Seriously awaiting your alleged upcoming posts in October which will teach us all about your "system". It should be a life changing event if the Mayans don't act first.
No way I'll be showing anything in comparison to any long term theoretical nonsense. What you'll see is how it works out TODAY. Who cares how it might look over infinity? We all play individual sessions and that's all that matters when analyses are worked. It's the machines and the casinos that are concerned with long term results...along with very misguided wannabee winners, aka, AP's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That's pretty selective for such an open and honest guy Vic, right? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
Oct. is when I return to Pahrump, and there's no date set yet for when I, and I think jatki if he's still here, am going to have the time for the trip. The most exciting thing about it to tell you the truth, is being able to take the ZR1 out for a run while I'm there. But no date set. You see, you're not dealing with some slug you met at some video poker bar, some loser with nothing else to do like Mickey Crimm (and too bad he's broke btw) or a retiree who does nothing, like arci. plus I have a mobile wife and children/grandchildren, so this effort doesn't rank too high. I will, however, get the strategies up first. That oughta get your educational juices going as you wait for the backup.
Alan, I'll clear arci's misrepresentations up for you, realizing I hope that he doesn't understand a great part of how and why the strategy works and only sees what he wants to see or his limited knowledge will allow him to see. Granted, he has gobs of time to write his rambles because it gives him something to do, but he's been making the same uneducated guesses for years and still can't get close.
As I said earlier, the long term theoretical return means nothing to my strategy. I began the development by looking at that 100.17%, for instance, as TODAY'S ONLY return expectation, then proceeded to improve it. It'll all fall into place when you see it, and of course, after arci cries in his beer (if he's allowed to drink it, that is :)). Similarly, whatever funny math he's using THAT HE NEVER EXPLAINS as he tries to impress you with lies about how the strategy works within its bankroll limitations. He knows how I'm laughing at him as he,writes these things, but the only important part of what he's doing, as I've explained, is to get you into long drawn out back-and-forths so he can fill in all that boring time he has on his hands and get the attention he craves so he doesn't crawl up the wall.
We're taking off in a few moments and I'll be concentrating on that for the next few days. Keep arci in line while I'm gone :)
I think it's time to stop telling us what you're going to tell, and just tell us... or show us.
Perhaps we should all stop debating Rob's system till he presents his system so we have something that everyone can see so that everyone has something concrete to comment on.
Now, in the case of the special plays, and in the case of the articles that have been posted, and in the case of Rob's own comments here -- those are concrete items. We can read them and discuss them.
But until we see "the system" why don't we hold off till we see it here?
Never going to happen. All you will get is weasel words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If there were ever someone who's bracing for something they will never be able to handle arc, you da man!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
That's the difference between you and me. You believe in fairy tales, Santa and Singer. I have already seen the proofs that apply to the game of VP. I have nothing to wait for as I know as an absolute fact that Singer cannot provide anything relevant. He cannot provide anything that makes 2+2=5 and only a complete fool would believe he could.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
Arc, you are nervous. & what is this you do, sit nervously at the keyboard all day long waiting to make more foolish statements that you never ever support or back up? Is Singer really right, are you so bored with life that that's all you can do? Man. No wonder he makes you mad, he never misses the nail.
Arc I just don't understand why you keep returning to this theme that you believe Singer is saying 2 + 2 = 5 ??? Where the heck does this come from??
Please give me a clear answer. I really want to know where you think he said the math of video poker is wrong??
I was pretty much in accord with your response (although I have no idea who Mickey Crimm is AND I am a retiree like yourself, so you can dispense with the retiree comparisons) until you just had to say "mobile wife". This repeated lack of respect for the spouse of a forum member is completely out of line. If you'd like to be taken seriously as an adult, then act like one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
What a bunch of silly statements. Wait, let me rephrase that. What a bunch of ridiculous lies. Do you know what I did today? If not, then how can you claim I "sit nervously at the keyboard all day long "? Obviously, you'd have to follow me around to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
I could say a lot of things about you, but I would never claim to know what you do all day. Only a complete idiot would make that kind of claim.
PS. Since you're so interested, in addition to my usual stuff I played golf, bowled 5 games and played cards with some friends. What did you do?
Superman, no doubt about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Alan, when someone claims they can assure you can win on a negative game just by using a betting strategy, then they are saying the equivalent of 2+2=5. You keep saying Singer doesn't dispute the math, but look at this claim:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
"I began the development by looking at that 100.17%, for instance, as TODAY'S ONLY return expectation, then proceeded to improve it."
Notice the highlighted words? the 100.17 value is a maximum value computed using simple arithmetic. There is no way to "improve it". In other words, unless 2+2 can be made equal to something other than 4.
Singer does this constantly if you read what he is saying. He claims he can improve the maximum return of a game. Hence, he is claiming that 2+2=5 (or pick any number greater than 4).
Now, I understand your position. Okay. Let's look at it a different way. Let's use a coin flip as a simple example.
Over time, (let's say 100,000 flips), you should have half heads and half tails, or thereabouts. That gives you a 50% return of heads for a fair coin flip.
But suppose you happen to flip eight out of ten heads, do you still have a 50% return of heads? No, you have 80% heads.
The difference of course is that the measurement of "eight out of ten heads" is a short term measurement. Why can't you allow someone to use "short term results"?
You Arc, actually use short term results when you tell us about your wins and losses playing video poker. You report "of the last ten years" or "of the last 15 years."
I think this all comes down to Singer's "short term, win goal system." If you play a short term strategy, and cash out a winner in the short term, you will never fall victim to the long term? But of course you will argue there is no way to also be a short term winner on a negative expectation game. Yet, people do it every day.
Alan, there are differences between the past and the future. When stating what has happened all you are doing is relating an anecdotal experience. When stating what will happen there are only probabilities. No one can claim to improve the odds on what will happen by using a betting system. However, that is exactly what Singer does.
Have you forgotten about all the money you have lost over the years?
You didn't answer my question, Arc.
And I would venture to say that probably 90% of the time I gambled and lost (session, trip, weekend) at some point I was ahead. Sometimes I was ahead by a lot. And had I quit when I was ahead, I would not have the losses that you refer to.
Again, it comes down to the win goal method, which you reject.
Alan, I gave you the answer. A short term result is simply one of many examples. You, like many people, tend to remember only a subset of your past play. You can always remember situations where you would have won. We've all had them. You don't tend to remember those things that don't fit your beliefs. Here's a true statement:
If you had only played on days where you ended up winning you would be way ahead at the present.
Absolutely true, right? So why did you gamble on those other days? You don't need win goals, all you have to do in the future is only gamble on the days where you will win.
I think you can appreciate the fallacy in this line of thinking. So, can you now see why your win goals won't help?
Arc, how do you know? How do you know that enough people don't have enough sessions when -- at some point -- they were "up" enough to offset the negative games they were playing over time?
I don't know. But I look at surveys that show that something like 90% of players said they were ahead at some point during their trips, yet 95% leave as losers. What if the mindset of casinogoers changed so that they all quit when ahead, even by just one dollar? What would happen then?
The casinos spend gazillions of dollars to try to insure that we don't stop playing when we win.
They hand us cash or even ask if we want tickets when we get a hand pay. Why not a check? Because checks don't go into slot machines.
They ask us to play the machine again after a handpay to clear the jackpot.
They say "do it again" as they give us the handpay.
They hide the exits.
They flood the casinos with signs and lights and sounds of "winning."
The issue isn't do people win -- the issue is can people stop after they won.
The issue is not one of math. The issue is one of psychology. People do win playing negative expectation games. But can you make them stop after they won on this trip, the next trip and the trip after?
If I'm wrong arc then it wouldn't be so important to you what a no one thinks or says, and a normal person wouldn't go through all the hoops you do just so others don't have the same opinion about you. If I'm right, holy smokes! You'd do the same thing!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If Rob (or jakti or anybody) can improve upon expected optimal return over a significant number of hands (say, 500K or more), I'm sure I can rustle up some investors who will be willing to wager any amount they cannot.
Alan, I'm sure there's a reason you don't consult any professional mathematicians about all this, but if you'd like to put your cash on the line for a 500K hand demo bet, and you have 10 or 20K floating around you don't need, I'm positive I can arrange a gentleman's bet.
There is no need to contact any professional because I don't dispute what the math says. All I suggest is that it is possible that your personal results will not be what the math says.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Now redietz you are talking about "a significant number of hands" of 500K or more for your bet. Would you make the same bet if we were to play only five hands? Of course you wouldn't. Because in the short run anything could happen. Voila!!!
Makes perfect sense to me. What these guys can't see is if it can happen once it can happen any amount of times. I don't get why they say it can happen often, they know it can happen often, but then they say it has got to be that you'll lose if it is played as a single session too much. Even the coinflip can come up tails 500 times in a row. How likely that is doesn't matter. Like Singer says, videopoker is based on the math, but the game and its outcome is not based on math alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
But Reidtz, 500,000 hands? Really? How would such a feat ever come off? My numbers at 500 hands every hour say that's a thousand hours. Unrealistic. Hows about putting up something doable and maybe you'll get a taker or two?
This is too funny. We stop to have a picnic, I take a leak then take a quick look here, and it never ends!
Jatki, nice job pinning down arci and working him over into backtracking and face-saving on his long-time lying about my training sessions. Just understand he has way too much pride & ego to admit anything that dims the light he thinks is so brightly shining down on him. But congrats....it was fun to read :)
Redietz, your offer--and it would have to be for at least $20k--makes me salivate, but jatki's right. Make it something we can actually do within a normal timeframe. What about the same type offer I made the Wizard and his crew of math geniuses and extremists? After weeks of them calling me more names than arci when I said I have and could consistently beat negative games, I offered to prove them wrong by saying we'd make a $25000 bet that I could win at least 7 out of 10 sessions playing my strategy AND I'd be ahead by at least an average of $2500/session played at the end. If I were ahead then the geniuses would have to pay me that amount in addition to the $25000. If I were did not win at least 7 sessions and if I were behind, then I would pay them the $25000 plus the amount I was behind. If I lost 4 sessions then I lost the $25000 even if I were ahead overall, which could be very possible if a huge win happened in one or more sessions. The entire pack of Einsteins ran away and I was asked to leave after that.
How's this sound?
I'm no sucker, Rob. My estimate is you should win closer to eight sessions out of 10.
That is not the point. The point is can you make your future results profitable on negative machines by using win/loss stops. Remember the difference between past and future. No one cares about what has been done. They want to know what will happen in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes, and that "anything" also includes losing your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Let me ask you this. If it is possible to win eight sessions out of ten in one ten session trial, is it not possible to win eight sessions out of ten in the second ten session trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
To paraphrase Arc, to think that the RNG would force you to lose after winning can only happen if the RNG were not random.
In a random game anything can happen.
Oh yeah, we forgot about the fairies and leprechauns. They must make all the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
Ever heard of multi-play machines? Geez, what mindless dribble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
With 100 play you can divide your 1000 hours by 100. Yup, a whopping 10 hours. Or just go with 10-play and take a little more time. Easily doable.
Exactly right. And the "anything" also includes winning a million dollars over ten years. I'm glad we finally resolved this.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Now, let's find out exactly what Rob's system is, okay?
Arc, I would be careful with substituting a 100 play machine for playing 100 individual hands. If by chance a royal is dealt it will skew the results.
I was once dealt a royal on a 50-play machine, and one night at Caesars I was dealt quads no less than four times playing quarters on a 50 play machine. (Actually there was a fifth time, but on that machine I was only playing 20 lines.) The machines were side by side, and I played the other while waiting for the hand pays.